DxOMark: EOS 5DS/R sensor is highest-ranked Canon sensor yet

DxOMark just published its report on the 50MP sensor in Canon's EOS 5DS and 5DSR. The company's measurements indicate that the 50MP full-frame CMOS is the best-performing Canon sensor to date, offering massive resolution, roughly a 1/3EV improvement in dynamic range over Canon's previous best-performer in this regard, the EOS 6D, with low light performance only a bit behind Canon's low light king, the EOS-1D X. You can compare the 5DS to the 6D and 1D X, Canon's most recent full-frame cameras, here.

The new cameras don't break any records though - according to DxOMark's tests, the EOS 5DSR and 5DS sit in 21st and 22nd place in the company's overall rankings. This is well behind cameras with current-generation Sony CMOS sensors. DxO's results mirror essentially what we found when we put the 5DS R through our Raw dynamic range tests, and you can read our findings here.

The kind folks at DxO have shared their sensor measurement data with us, so we'd like to take this opportunity to comment a bit further on the performance of the 5DS cameras, especially in relation to their nearest competitor, the Nikon D810. But first, a link to DxO's report:

Dynamic Range

We took the liberty of normalizing 5DS R dynamic range data from DxO to 36MP for a fair comparison against the Nikon D810. This process of normalization effectively ensures we're comparing cameras at a common viewing size, as if you were comparing prints of the same size. This helps cameras with higher pixel counts, which would otherwise be unfairly hurt by their noisier pixels. Since we view pictures, and not pixels, it makes sense to consider noise at the image level, not at the pixel level. By normalizing the 50MP of the 5DS R to 36MP, we're essentially comparing the 5DS R and the D810 on the same, level playing field.

DxO does something similar in their 'Print' mode display of their data; however, that assumes a very low output resolution of only 8MP, which is probably below the resolution most users of these high resolution cameras will desire. Here, we compare at the highest, common denominator: 36MP. Have a look below to see the Raw dynamic range of the cameras, stated in EV, as a function of ISO.

Raw dynamic range of Canon 5DS R vs. Nikon D810, as a function of ISO. 5DS R dynamic range has been normalized to an output of 36MP, for fair comparison against the Nikon D810. At base ISO, the 5DS R has 11.2 EV of dynamic range, while the D810 has 13.7 EV. That's a 2.5 EV advantage of the D810 at base ISO. By ISO 800, differences are minimal. Raw data courtesy of DxO

At base ISO, which is 100 for the 5DS R and 64 for the D810, the difference in 'engineering' dynamic range* is a rather hefty 2.5 EV, with the D810 and 5DS R exhibiting 13.7 and 11.2 EV dynamic range, respectively. That means that, down at the darkest levels of exposure on the sensor, tones that receive nearly 6x less light on the D810 will yield similar noise levels to those that received 6x more light on the 5DS R. This explains why you can push and reveal much deeper shadows with D810 Raw files than you can with the Canon files. This ability allows one to expose high contrast scenes for the highlights, which yields a traditional underexposure of midtones and shadows. Due to the low noise of these darker tones recorded on a D810 sensor, one can then push them to make them visible again in a manner one cannot do as effectively on a 5DS R.

Differences in dynamic range between these cameras continue to hold, albeit decrease, all the way up to ISO 800, at which point any differences become minimal at best.

The advantage of ISO 64

There are two things that enable the much higher dynamic range of the D810: first of all, low read noise due to on-chip ADC architecture means your camera's electronics don't have such a high noise floor that dark tones run into them. Second, Nikon implemented ISO 64 on the D810 by actually extending the saturation capacity of pixels (we're not sure how) relative to ISO 100 on previous D800/E cameras. This means that every pixel can capture more light before saturating and clipping. Now if we give the sensors more exposure to take advantage of the increased well-capacities, then darker portions of the scene get cleaner, due to less shot noise and lower risk of running into the, albeit low, noise floor. These are the features that lead to wide dynamic range on the D810, none of which are found in the 5DS cameras.

Signal:Noise Ratio

Having compared the 5DS R vs its nearest competitor, the Nikon D810, with respect to dynamic range, we thought it'd be interesting to see if any of the tones - bright to dark, white to black - of the 5DS R can compete with the best the D810 can do. We can do this by plotting the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of every tone the sensor of each camera can record, from raw data provided to us by DxO. All you need to know about SNR is this: the higher it is, the 'cleaner' and less noisy the tone is.

Looking at the SNR plots below, it's clear that the D810 has a higher SNR for virtually every tone the sensor can record compared to the 5DS R. This is due to the technologies we've already discussed that give it high base ISO dynamic range: a higher full-well capacity of pixels means the camera can actually capture more light, while the lower read noise means that at darker tones (on the left end of this graph) suffer less from noise due to the camera's sensor and electronics. In fact, it's the higher read noise of the 5DS R that causes the continuous drop in SNR relative to the D810 for all lower tones (left side of the graph).

Base ISO signal:noise ratio (SNR) in dB for all tones the 5DS R (blue) and D810 (red) can record. Higher SNR is better. For all tones, the D810 benefits from a higher full-well capacity of pixels, which means the sensor in its entirety can record more light, which reduces shot noise. The lower (downstream) read noise of the D810 also ensures that darker tones have far higher SNR, and therefore less noise, than the 5DS R. This is why the red line pulls further and further away (tones get cleaner and cleaner) from the blue line for darker tones. Raw data courtesy of DxO

An interesting aside: the high SNR of tones the D810 records, by capturing more light and contributing less read noise, actually makes it a competitor for modern medium format sensors - from Sony itself - found in Phase One backs, and the Pentax 645Z. It's why some of the ISO 64 shots on the D810 just look so sharp and clean and, dare we say, almost have that 'medium format look'. With the D810, Nikon improved on an already class-leading sensor with the introduction of a native ISO 64. But we digress, and will save a SNR comparison between the D810 and 645Z for a separate article.

What's this all mean in the real world? You may remember the tulip sunrise shot from our 5DS R dynamic range analysis. We've included it on the next page of this article. Some of the shadows, including the greens of the tulip stems, in that shot have a Raw signal that translates to a grey level of approximately 0.26 in the graphs above (on an 8-bit, 255 scale). For the 5DS R, that yields a SNR of 6 dB, while the same signal yields a SNR of 18 dB for the D810, which is actually a 16-fold higher SNR (every 3 dB increase is a doubling in absolute SNR). That is impressive, and accounts for the real-world difference photographers see in noisiness of shadows between these cameras.

* Engineering dynamic range (EDR) reports the range of tones between clipping and a the lowest tone, on the dark end, that still has an 'acceptable' noise threshold of SNR = 1. Oftentimes this leads to a higher range than is actually usable, as most photographers will not consider tones with SNR = 1 as 'acceptable'. EDR is still useful as a point of comparison between cameras, though quoting absolute EDR numbers may have questionable relevancy. We've been investigating the idea of using a higher SNR threshold on the low end and, indeed, the 'Photographic Dynamic Range' popularized by Bill Claff uses a higher SNR threshold to yield some very useful comparisons and absolute dynamic range numbers, which Bill calculates himself independently on his excellent site.

Comments

Nice post, Rishi. I am glad that you keep up the pressure like this. As a Canon user that seems obvious, but here's hoping that Sony takes note as well - they've got a big lead now, but for it to stay like this, they can't rest on their laurels either, no matter what the "5-year-old-sensor-tech" crowd may believe.

So what does it all mean?It simply means that Canon users have the best camera possible now....It may not have reached the lofty heights of the Sony sensor brands but for Canon users a lot has improved, not least the resolution...if this camera is at least as good as the 6D but with a truckload more resolution, then it becomes a very compelling buy. All I can hope for now is that the Sony A7Rmk2 raises the bar so much higher that Canon has no option but to improve their R&D massively...but until that happens , well what we have now at least, is not too shabby...

I've been using Canon for years now and it seems that the faults that are found technically have little or nothing to do with actual results. I understand that we have a bias as to which camera brand we prefer and in my own opinion there are reasons. My old 5D mkII gives me everything I want. I have never looked at one of my prints and thought I wish I had more dynamic range like Nikon or whomever. Canon gives me exactly what I want and except for the resolution, which I would like to have 50mp, there has never been anything wrong. I get the incredible color that I feel only canon provides (bias) and I also get great black and white. The detail is as good or better than film, which for me is saying something. It seems to me that many Nikon people find the technical pluses and announce them but I don't see them discussing photo quality as the main plus for their camera. Just saying. (stirring it up a little)

It's at least a valid point of critique. When I saw the DR curves and explanation about larger well capacities and lower ISO my first thought was: But can photographers make use of these in practice when exposure times are dictated by movement and light availability?

Not every landscape is bathed in high contrast summer sunlight without wind to allow long exposure times at ISO 64. In order to fill all those photon wells you need to capture enough photons. Leaves, birds and whatnot don't exactly hold still during that time. Of course the lower noise floor still allows to get away better with less photons, too. But obviously only up to a certain point.

So the proof is in the pudding, aka, in practice things don't necessarily line up as on graphs. As always it depends on the usage scenario. Right tool for the job.

Agree with everything you've said Timur Born - those are great points.

Generally speaking, though, in many landscape scenarios you can give the camera the extra exposure needed for ISO 64... in fact, most of the time I find I can. I can additionally easily shoot at ISO 64 when shooting portraits outdoors in sunny weather (even near sunset) with fast primes (F2, F1.4, e.g.). So oftentimes I've found I can take advantage of ISO 64. A quick search by metadata finds thousands of well-exposed ISO 64 shots in my library.

So it's fair, I think, to compare the best each camera can do, rather than cripple the D810 by comparing it at ISO 100.

Of course, for low light applications, it's a different story, which is why in our studio scene comparisons (including the links in this article), we always compare at the same manufacturer ISO, same focal plane exposures.

@Timur Born : the most important thing with better dynamic range is that it helps better reproduction of tones not only in deepest shadows (which could be impossible anyway because of flare and glare), but across the whole range of shadows, starting from approx. -8EV from the clipping point. Another important thing is that it allows for less raise of ISO setting, or faster shutter to freeze the motion, or more stop-down of the lens to get better depth of field, or less field flatness from a deeply tilted lens, and so on.To me, 5DS is not a landscape camera but a studio camera because it needs a very good control of light to extract resolution, not to mention the super-steady support.

Rishi, you are making a mistake in trying to extrapolate your personal shooting experiences to those of the rest of the planet. The luxury of shooting landscapes at ISO 64 with long exposures is pretty rare in my experience. So while you up there in the Pacific Northwest may enjoy microclimates that allow you to shoot the way you describe, some of us are not so lucky.

Thanks for the explanation Iliah, that's understood. It was just that the article underlined the advantages of more well capacity and corresponding possibility for lower ISO, while I wondered how well this can be used in practice.

I am no landscape shooter myself and most of the time need unhealthy high ISO, so it's more of a curiosity/academic question for me, maybe more practically relevant for others. Not to mention that I am using a Nikon D750 myself. ;)

they should have done something about the sensor manufacturing process. But, i guess for the intended purpose and customers, it may sometimes be a perfect match.

And, there's one thing that have always been in my mind when i read comparos between cameras. when you compare camera 'a' with camera 'b' which has lower pixel count, by downsizing the images from camera 'a' to the size of camera 'b',.... aren't you giving an advantage to the images from camera with lower pixel count? , because it is not edited at all, whereas the other one has gone through the Photoshop once. ? ? ?

No, since the alternative - not downsizing the higher resolution camera at all - hurts the higher resolution camera more. Also, our downsampled image is generated on-the-fly server side, and saved using very high image quality settings, so any degradation in image quality is probably not perceivable by any human being. :)

well.... yes, there is a small advantage to the lower pixel camera, but it's really minimal. The other way around you could enlarge the smaller image.... but it leads to a much more objective comparison than viewing the images at different magnifications. And after all, when you print an image you take the decision based of the paper size, not on the image pixel count :)

One could even argue the other way around. More information (mp) captured and then downsized with a quality algorithm will provide more information in the final image.

So a 50 mp image downsized to 36 mp may provide more information than an original 36 mp image. That's the whole idea of providing more mp.

That being said, downsizing algorithms would benefit from applying low-pass filters to cut out high frequency information of the original image that wouldn't make it into the final downsize anyway. I would appreciate the results much more compared to the aliasing and "false detail" we usually get with most downsizing of today.

Why don't you upsize the smaller pixel camera to match the higher one? To my mind that would be more realistic as tall the 'faults' of the smaller pixel camera would be amplified, to match the 'size' that the higher megapixel camera is capable of....lets say I want to print 60x90cm then the 'lack of resolution' would start to show on the lessor pixel camera as compared to the 'higher' pixel camera...and isnt that the point why one buys a higher megapixel camera in the first place, to be able to print larger? Just asking....

but, wouldnt it be better if you downsized both the cameras to a common size? such as 34 mp in this case (not that it would have made a difference in this comparison). it may be an important factor while comparing the new sony 40 mp sensor to the old 36 mp sensor.

Amazing how many people are still so attached in their identity to a brand. This is simple- Canon sensors are behind Sony's in dynamic range. That doesn't mean your Canon camera (if you have one) stopped working. It does mean for those looking for a camera, that's one thing to weight against the Canon vs the Canon advantages it may or may not have over what they are considering.

Pick what works for you. All cameras are good now. DR is not a Canon advantage- just put it as a cons in your list vs the Canon pros and make your choices accordingly. If the Canon in the end works pick that. If it doesn't, pick something else. If you already have one and love the glass, get out and shoot.

There's no need to have a heart attack for the performance of a product of a capitalist company.

And here is someone who doesn't know anything about photography, DR by most people's standards here but also doesn't give damn about gear lovers' current fetish. If you can bare not seeing any mention of DR, SNR etc.

Here is some help for those who doesn't want to read it. "His advice to young documentary photographers is, predictably, not technical: “You should have a good knowledge of history, of geopolitics, of sociology and anthropology to understand the society that we’re part of and to understand yourself and where you’re from in order to make choices. A lack of this knowledge will be much more limiting than any technical ability.”

Certainly. You can find great photographers at a Nikon website, a Fuji website, an Olympus website, and a Pentax website. If am going to spend my heard earned cash on a camera system I want to pick the one that matches my needs best. I am well aware the camera doesn't make the photographer but for my money, there is nothing wrong with picking one with better (notably better) DR if one exists and I need that.

Further to below. Also, that 2.5 stop advantage at base ISO drops to 1.75. If you throw a D800E into the mix, it moves the high ISO numbers up to match the 5DS R , but no material change in the base ISO relative to the D810. The difference between these numbers and DXO's are probably not really significant in the real world, but it is tiring that DXO (and DPR with DXO's numbers) keeps pounding at Canon over one issue and exaggerate the problem to add insult to injury. If you are shooting 50 megapixels at base ISO, you best have the camera on a tripod (Where HDR is usually practical) in the vast majority of cases. From ISO 400 up (where almost all hand held shots will need to be taken at that resolution just to get sufficient shutter speed), the 5DS R is equal to or better than any of the full frame competition and only 1/3 of a stop off the 645Z mark. I am finding the camera takes amazing pictures, so enjoy it rather than whining about one tiny corner of the performance space.

Well at some point it would be nice if Canon fixes this and they're not going to if sites like this don't keep hounding them. Although I don't think that extra dynamic range is all that useful for real life photos every now and again I get a badly exposed image that needs to be pushed and the difference is noticeable (I have a Sony and Samsung too).

Also Rishi I want an article on the effects of not having and electronic first curtain because only the 810 (of Nikon DSLRs) has that and seeing that its probably more critical for landscapes shooting where you're touting Nikons to have an advantage I think it only fair to devote equal effort in that direction not to be bias.

Not by just measuring it, but by using DXO's numbers which always seem to be fudged in favor of Sony sensors (not by enough to make a performance difference, but by enough to make a marketing difference). Sony made a good decision years ago to be the sensor leader. Given the state of the market, I am not sure that anyone else can make the investment to compete directly and make a profit (which BTW Sony often doesn't). If Sony's fab blows up, then Canon will be the only choice.

Even smaller pushes will show more noise than with a higher DR camera, yes, but will that be a problem for you? Only you can know that, but you can visually assess, and decide for yourself the impact of, the additional noise from more modest pushes in our Raw dynamic range widgets here

Wow, 50 Megapixels....of noise from a $3,700 camera and that includes bright tones. I checked the sample images from the D810 at ISO 64 and found the noise in the dark tones to be just about right. I mean, these cameras are not cheap and the image quality from the 5Ds looks like it came from a Sony APS-C based camera such as the a6000 and it is not even best in class.

I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on dynamic range as the be-all and end-all of a camera's image quality.

The staff at DPR has already proven that you can get gorgeous images out of the new 5D and pros and amateurs will be taking jaw-dropping photos with them for years to come despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the internet, so could we please move on?

Normally I'd agree with you and add that you should hardly need to rely dpreview to find examples of great photos taken with lower performing sensors....

.... still 15 dB S/N at low ISO is nothing to sneeze at. It's something worth considering when buying a new camera. Nikon/Sony still have Canon at a tremendous advantage here, and if I had to choose between +15 dB S/N or +18% more resolution, I'd tend to spring for the former.

It shouldn't be an obsession, just like people shouldn't get defensive. It is what it is, and for a lot of shots out there that are high contrast, this is not the camera to get because of that DR. Doesn't mean it's useless. But just like there shouldn't be a monomaniacal fixation on DR, there shouldn't be a mono maniacal fixation in defending the reality that it's something - a characteristic - of lack acquisition where Canon sensors are lacking vs Sony's.

It depends on what you shoot. Base ISO is ok for tripod landscapes and studio... for landscapes you need DR, but more often you also have time to take more bracketed shots, so...for other uses (sports, journalism, events, etc) most shots are above ISO 800 anyway, where there is no DR advantage. Of course, on the other hand, shooting hand-held you probably will not benefit from the higher res either...

So, what i am trying to say is that all this DR endless discussions, while valid and definitely worth taking into account, are not the "be-all and end-all" as SmilerGrogan, said.

I didn't say they are the end all be all. Please where did I imply that. But how hard is it to consider that a competitor's product that has 2+ DR has a key advantage in that area and just admit that, make choices accordingly.

Bracketing is a work around. It can work, for many things it works, for many things it doesn't

Here's a simple question: how much would those who are saying this doesn't matter or is not important would change their tune if it was the Canon having the 2 stops advantage in DR? And by the way, when I say important- I mean important for those who need it, for those who shoot in conditions where that makes a difference.

I agree with you with viewing all the data, and making the choices accordingly. But surely having good glass on all cameras, and capabilities, if a sticking point is the DR aspect, many would sure- and righty so- consider that when spending so much money, no?

I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on Canon user as the wider dynamic range is better for everyone.

The comments at DPR has already proven that you can be ridiculous when saying you don't need something while there is better things available on the market both selling the same price. Is not like you have to pay hundreds more for more stops of dynamic range. Canon need to learn and step up their game, not become stagnant.

Raist3d, actually my comment was not in response to yours, as i wrote it probably in the same time (I've read yours after i have submitted mine). The end remark was in agreement with OPs statement. I completely agree with your point, and i don't see any disagreement in my comment :)

Birdkai, yes, the DR advantage is just that a big advantage (at base iso) what i said is that canon have other advantages and other disadvantages as well... depends on what area you use the camera most, what lenses you need, and so on...And by the way, i am not a "canon fan" ... i mostly shoot using Fuji with adapted old glass, and for AF needs a very old canon body, which has probably at least one stops less DR than the current (canon) models :)

Hi Badi, agreed. Canon has some pros compared to others. What i'm trying to say is, the sensor tech is out there, you may lag behind, but not by that margin. Canon needs to step up, not stay stagnant behind the protection of those loyal customer. Since they are good in other areas, why not make it better in what they lack? Instead, they keep using that 18MP sensor over and over and over and over again, claiming improved, new, whatsoever. They really didn't try hard in this department while they can and mostly capable of.

"I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on dynamic range as the be-all and end-all of a camera's image quality."

Maybe it's because this is one area digital still lags behind film? Kodak Porta negative film has a 19 stop dynamic range. Even the worst negative film is around 12 stops.

If you ever saw the results from medium format photos shot on negative film you's probably understand more why DR is important.

This article alludes to it when it says the Nikon has an almost medium format look about it. It is a quality that makes shots lacking in DR look hard and ones that have it gain a quality that is almost ethereal.

You may think digital shots with a DR of 11 or less are fine but then what you have never had, you never miss.

SmilerGrogan, I think it's a good idea for consumers to voice their concerns. Canon is falling way behind other brands. If we continue to push Canon, maybe Canon will work harder on building better senors. You can get gorgeous images out of just about any camera under the right circumstances, but companies like Sony have moved on to give us better image quality in difficult and low lighting. When is settling for par ever been ideal ? Using your logic I guess we might as well just say hey going to the moon is all we need to do, no need to go to mars, after all it's just another big rock...

Being a Nikon person, I remember a time not so long ago when Canon was the leader in all things—especially high ISO and overall beauty—and people like me were considered schmucks for sticking with such an antiquated brand as Nikon. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I say show a little compassion because sooner or later, Canon is going to do something that blows Sony and Nikon out of the water.

(Pentax, of course, will still make the best cameras, but that truth will be suppressed because of the worldwide anti-Pentax conspiracy.)

Please guys, stop ignoring the facts Canon really weaker in this regard. The message of Canon lagging behind really needs to deliver to them by having a weak sales and bigger sales in Sony sensor. Wait! Don't get angry, what i mean is let Canon really get back into R&D of sensor, not just self contain with high market share, we need competition in this. Don't you want better tech in sensor? If Sony won in this, they will be stagnant as well, keep on pushing slight improvement in every variance. Samsung did great in the NX1, now A7RII is out, lets just keep rolling new tech that benefits us all.

Sony is winning the big hybrid chip sensor fab battle... against the very aggressive Samsung. Canon isn't a contender in this contest, still analog with huge feature sizes.

Incidentally, Samsung is the default winner in most chip fab contests these days, with Intel being the other dominant high-end player; Intel wins on the parts they make, but Samsung seems to be making a wider range of parts for more companies. Former fab leaders IBM and AMD have sort-of left the fab business, which is unfortunately an ongoing trend.

I wouldn't say much better. But ya better in DR. There have been some reviews that point that out. When lighting conditions are good like in studio the Canon will be better... Otherwise Nikon is a better buy. The new Sony A7 that will be coming out should out perform all of them.

The DR of the Canon 5DS is not terrible, and in flat enough lighting it's fine; simple JPEGs only encode about 9 EV. However, the DR is virtually identical to the 11.2 EV of the Sony A100, which means Canon is behind Sony sensor tech by about a decade. Getting close to 13 EV DR matters a lot for general shooting, because that roughly matches instantaneous human vision.

In sum, DR is not a battle Canon fab technology can win. They'll need to leverage the fact that their very conservative fab should produce large sensors at a much lower unit cost. I bet Canon could get a 50MP FF EOS-M-style body out for under $1000... that would be interesting, especially running Magic Lantern (ML). Keep in mind that ML's dual-ISO exposure hack, if it can be applied to that sensor, could get you 13+ EV in a single shot.

"So the Nikon is much better?" I like that question, because it opens up to looking at all the qualities of a camera, not just DR. There are so many people in here who seem to imply that a DR advantage (of small relevance to real world shooting) equals a better camera. The DR of the EXMOR is a pro when considering Nikon and Sony, among many other considerations you should make when deciding which camera to buy.

Regarding the footnote about EDR and PDR ...An SNR of 1 or 0 dB is still usable in photography. Reason is that the threshold applies at the pixel level and with a high resolution sensor (say 39 MP) you have 16 pixels per pixel in a 1920 x 1280 HD image).The dark-level 4x4 binned pixel then has an SNR of 4 or 12 dB. That may be regarded as usable by enough photographers, esp. in a black & white image.

Rishi - "Much of an issue" vs "no issue" - keep that in mind. I could be wrong but if I remember correctly these Canon full frame sensors like the 5D MKII even tend to band on shadow pulls. At least in a more notable way than Sony based sensors.

I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.

But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?

'I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops.'.Another interesting point to make is, how many people are going to be meter checking their scene to make sure it's not more than 14 stops range? The Nikon/Sony sensor will only benefit you over a Canon in this small window between 12-14 stop DR range, so if it's over 14 what are you going to do? You'll have to carry fill flash or an ND grad filter anyway, so really all it means is that a Canon user has to set their fill flash 2 stops higher, or get an ND filter that's 2 stops stronger.Please don't tell me 'but when I push +4 ev in post the Nikon looks better!' cause no self respecting photographer shoots that way intentionally. The DXO scores between these cameras are essentially no more than numbers on a screen with almost no advantage in real world shooting situations (unless you make a lot of heavy exposure errors).

It may be that extended dynamic range results in a smoky HDR look but even if it doesn't, many scenes that include the light source in the picture greatly exceed what any digital camera can do, at least in a single exposure.

In theory, it would be great to have full detail from inisde a room with the blinds closed to the center of the sun, outside the window. Or a night scene with a row of floodlights where you can see the filaments in the bulbs. But even if it was possible, it wouldn't look natural. Like Ansel Adam's demonstrations with Pyrogallol. Interesting, but not realistic looking.

14 stops DR is huge in practice. 10 stops and you only have little latitude to adjust brightness levels in post, 12 stops and the ability in post is decent. 14 stops and you rediscover your images, I can tell you.

However, anything above 10 stops is only useful with decent tone mapping abilities in post processing. That's an art form, ask cinematographers, there tone mapping is its own profession!

Wide DR is a tool. As always, tools can be abused and create horrible results. But in the hands of masters, you'll create a whole new univers of images not possible without. And no, fill flash, ND filters or HDR bracketing are no substitutes, except in special cases.

This is why I cling to HDR shooting. If you're careful combining 3 or 4 shots taken a couple of stops apart, you can have a natural looking photo with extended dynamic range, and it will look better than simply a photo that results from pushing the shadows slider to the right in Photoshop.

Here's a real-world DR shootout of the 7D Mark II vs. D7000, which have 1 to 2 EV difference in DR. Uncomfortable stating the actual difference as we haven't measured/verified ourselves in the lab. The difference would be far more staggering with the D7200.

We have some D810 vs D800 vs 5D3 vs 645Z real-world shootouts as well, just haven't had the bandwidth to publish them yet. But they'll show the effect of even larger differences in DR, as the D810 shows a nearly 3EV advantage in DR over the 5D3. Watch for our publication of that data, if you're interested.

@fmian: I've heard that before, and it's odd reasoning. You're essentially arguing that the your camera adding noise to your darkest tones is irrelevant compared to a camera that doesn't do this. You may absolutely right, for your use cases, but here are a bunch of examples where that supposedly 'small' 2.5 EV window (3 EV relative to the 5D Mark III I used to shoot primarily with) actually made a difference:

Hence, to suggest that that 'small' 2.5 EV window is irrelevant in real-world scenarios is, well, incorrect. Every single one of those shots above would've had far more noise shot on a camera with 2.5 EV less dynamic range.

That depends on the shot. A shot that can fit in a 11 stops DR won't benefit from having 14 stops DR in the camera. But there are many types of shots out there that do, so yes, it would look better on a 14 stops DR camera assuming ballpark equal quality optics.

@Rishi, I respect what you are saying and I don't disagree that there is a difference or that it's of benefit in some situations. I just think it's beneficial in VERY limited situations. Like someone else said there are tone mapping processes that benefit but that technique in itself is a finely skilled art if you want to get it right.I really don't think you can say without a doubt that those photos would look worse on a camera with 2.5EV less range unless you stood there and did some metering or unless you took the same shots with the Canon. Let me know if you did this.Here is an image from the 5DS in similar low light with light sources in the distance albiet @ISO800 and I really can't see any shadow noise issues here. Or maybe I'm missing something *shrugs*http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/3234724/sam_023_iso400?inalbum=canon-eos-5ds-r-real-world-sample-gallery

First of all you wouldn't see dynamic range limitations in that shot b/c no tones were pushed. Secondly, the dynamic range differences even out at higher ISO, b/c of the way read noise works, which you can read about in our article here.

Also, we do have side-by-side shootouts of various cameras, where we show what 1, 2, and higher EV engineering DR differences translate to in the real world. In our 7D Mark II review, in our Sony a7S review, and we'll have some D810/D800/645Z/5D3 shootouts published soon. Where we triggered all cameras at the same time, ETTR'd properly, etc.

But this is of course not a practical test to do on a regular basis, which is why we've developed our Exposure Latitude & ISO Invariance tests, which you find here.

Finally, I shot for years, tens of thousands of images, w/ 5DC, 5D II, & 5D III, so I'm extrapolating from experience. Without a doubt? No. 99% certain? Pretty sure.

Name a cell 'SNR_Screen' and enter the screen value in db from the DxO dataName a cell 'native_mp' and enter the native megapixels of the cameraName a cell 'downsampled_mp' and enter what megapixels you'd like to calculate the SNR for

This is just a theoretical comparisons between them but how can I downsample the real 5DS RAW to 36MP without introducing sharpening, noise reduction, etc? As far as I know, there are many algorithms for downsampling but I have no idea which one is better.

Before D7000 and pentax K-5, users didn't realize sensor can have high dynamic Range. Customer were then happy and start comparing between cameras, found out Canon was weaker in this regard. Wet dreamers dream Canon.

Based on FACT.....The Pro's used the 10D, 20D, 30D and the customer could care less about Dynamic Range. Now its 2015, and the Pro's are using 7D and other camera's.....and still the customer could care less about Dynamic Range. MICRO-MANAGING Pixels like DxO does, is a waste of time.

The landscape photographers were prolly shooting film with larger formats back then. The "pros" knew the dslrs weren't up for the task yet, so there was nothing to really complain about yet. It was after it was shown "hey, dslr can do this too" that the new DR race began!

So, 100% Pro using Canon? Of course customer care less about dynamic range, they don't even need to know what it is. They want the end result! If you have unrecoverable overexpose white area (bride gown) or underexpose black area (bush/beach under sunset) then you will definitely pis them off.

To me, the OMD range feels like junk compared to the 35mm OM range. Plastic components, fiddly buttons, cramped design. Even in my small hands the OMD feels like it will slip out. The pro DSLR bodies feel like workhorses that you can rely on.

I just picked up an OMD E-M5, the kit lens is plastic mounted atrociousness, but the body is solid. And the whole point of Micro Four Thirds is its portability, any 5d is simply too big to trudge around, when time came for me to go full frame, I went 6d instead of the 5d mark 2 I planned on going with. Size had a lot to do with it.

I do not understand the Micro Four Thirds hate around here. No one is going to take your DSLR away, but some of us want a portable solution that doesn't suck. Anything with an aps-c sensor simply needs lenses that are too large, aps-c should just die in all forms there should simply be full frame, and then micro4/3. Micro Four Thirds cameras come little larger then an rx100 (GM1, GM5,) all the way up to the GH4, and from what I've seen from my e-m5 so far, it matches or exceeds my 60d (Using a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE) There is no reason for aps-c sensors to be around in a DSLR anymore. They simply should just make more affordable full frames.

Bernard, the pro bodies are made from Magnesium Alloy and feel quite different to the plastic bodies in the lower end models. Maybe it's just the colour that is telling your brain that it's plastic? *shrugs*.BattleBrat, I understand what you are saying about APS-C. I feel there are WAAAAY too many models on the market and at the very least the bottom barrel models need to be culled. But it's just there in the history of DSLR's as a necessity before the full frame sensors got cheaper, and that history lingers. They sold MASSIVE amounts of them, AND there is still good compromise between sensor size and specs to be had from certain models (D7xxx and 7D) which have been incredibly popular among both enthusiasts and pros. Also... it's good to have a smaller lighter ultrawide APS-C solution alongside a full frame prime solution during events. Plus there is an advantage in having a 100mm lens usable on FF and Crop with totally different angle of views.I feel you, but there are advantages.

Thanks, Rishi, for the great article. I use DxO OpticsPro every day for my architectural work (another area of photography where Dynamic Range is very important). Their software, their measurement techniques and the data they produce is awesome, but they don't know how to write. They are clueless when it comes to explaining things. You are just the opposite--clear and concise. They should be paying you for this article, not because you endorse them, but because you can make sense of their data. They cannot. Thank you!

We've shot with the 645Z on multiple occasions, which is why I made the comment.

The 645Z is a wonderful camera, but significantly more out-of-reach compared to the D810 so, yes, there's a reason we're 'championing' the D810 for its SNR capabilities relative to the 645Z. Because it's a pretty cool concept to be able to compensate for sensor surface area by increasing effective full-well capacity of pixels.

Great article Rishi. Keep the pressure up - even those that don't like reading about it now will come to appreciate it later when it leads to better sensors. And not just for Canon - Nikon dropped the ball with the D7100, which was a significant step back in terms of usable DR compared to the D7000, and fortunately corrected with the D7200. Sensors have been "good enough" for many years - they'll need to step up their game if they want to continue feeding from the prosumer upgrade trough.

Thanks Horshack. I'd love to hear more from you guys about the color response; was following some your comments with Iliah on this. I'll reach out to Iliah to see if there's anything we can provide that might help him do a thorough analysis on the CFA of the 5DS and 5DS R and, like I said, we're still curious about the discrepancies in DxO's own measurements of SMI.

Yes, great point about the D7100, and I'm glad we finally got it into our Raw DR (Exposure Latitude and ISO invariance) widgets, clearly showing the banding. Someone over at Nikon or Toshiba must have realized that it was an issue, which is nice, as the D7200 is a vast improvement.

DxO needs to find a way to better incorporate banding into their DR measurements.

I felt a specific shout out to what Nikon has done with ISO 64 on the D810 was in order here, as well. The bar is continually being raised with respect to sensor quality, & it's important to reward that emphasis by clearly stating the benefits & advantages.

Color science is well beyond my technical competence - every time I think I have a handle on it Iliah drops a knowledge bomb that leaves me dazed and confused :) Hopefully he'll be available to lend his expertise to the site.

I completely agree about the banding. I'm no expert in this kind of testing but I've used a few cameras in my time - a few Canons, Sony RX100, Nikon D800. I've generally found my real world experience to be broadly in line with the DXO scores for DR. However, I have felt (emphasis on felt - this is my user experience not my own detailed tests) that the area in which my experience deviated most from the DXO scores was when comparing the output from a camera known to have banding issues (7D) to those that didn't (everything else, including the 6D). Whatever the SNR, I didn't want to push the shadows on the 7D at all. For my personal taste, the banding killed it. Compare to even the 6D and I'd be happy to push the shadows quite a long way. Potentially, the extra aesthetic effect of a banding pattern is something that won't show up using a signal/noise based technique.

LOL, yes and if you think for one second that somehow implies the 7D II has superior IQ at any ISO you need to start taking your meds again. 5DsR has the best IQ of any Canon DSLR to date and trounces the 5D III at any ISO up to at least 3200.

Sad the Dynamic Range is lagging far far away of some Sony sensors. With 2EV more dynamic range it would have been a killer.

But for me (and seems I am not alone on DPReview), Dynamic Range and Noise are more important than sensor Resolution, at least if resolution is great enough (says 24MP+ on full frame).

I expect surprising results from Sony Alpha 7IIr with it's 42MP sensor, with at least more than 1EV Dynamic Range headroom compared to Canon's. Better resolution, small form factor, great Dynamic Range, lower Noise. I could bet on it.

I bought the Nikon D610 just for that: very high Dynamic Range and low Noise, while being more limited in resolution by prime lenses than by it's 24MP definition. (I use Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 primarily, except for live event with Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized that is really inferior to prime lenses).

I hope Canon, Sony and Nikon will at some point produce standard prime lenses that have enough resolution!

In tests for surfing speed, the current generation iPhones has the same speed as the previous generation Android. Just saying. So, wepwawet seems to have a point. There are better and cheaper, still they sell.

BTW - I do actually like the Mac computers, even if they also give less for more. In many respects they are better thought out. For one thing, I can write Swedish letters (åäö) with an US keyboard. That is not easy with Windows or Linux.

@Josh - actually, most Linux users probably know more about Windows than Windows users do. Linux users tends to be quite savvy on how an OS works and know very well the difference between an NT based OS and Windows 95.

For what it is worth, the Windows 95/98 type of OSes had their charm. They had real multi tasking but could still be used to run DOS games.

Not sure if 50MP translate in 50MP-level resolution when using even a prime lens. I think that is the worst thing with these great 30MP+ sensors, the lenses have trouble to resolve details at this level.

I hope there will be an awesome new breed of prime lenses to give us the details these sensors deserve, and we ask for, for example for really big prints.

Not true. Depends on the size of your print, just as it depends on the viewing size on-screen. Noise looks worse at 100% than it does when viewed at 10% on screen, and the same holds true for larger vs. smaller prints.

The thing that made the D800/D810 is that while offered that massive 36mp resolution. We did not pay the price in dynamic range and noise performance. Actually it outperformed other sensors in Dynamic range at the lower ISO's

That can't be said about this Canon. They only went for resolution here. Can't wait till the A7rII get's tested.

@SFXR lemmings follow the piper that says the dynamic range of the sensor is the most important thing of a camera system. But people put their hard earned cash in the system that gives them what they want, at least most people do every time.

@67gtonr Canon is the Walmart of camera companies. They are the biggest most known brand, so many grandmas, soccer moms and teens FOLLOW THE CROWD and buy one. Canon provides very small upgrades on their cameras, and hold back basic features between models. But you go ahead and keep rowing on your sinking ship. Maybe of all the people running around on deck, someone can go below and find the leak. Those of us on other ships can see your water line better than you can.

@FXR So all those Canon cameras I see being used(by far the majority) at all sporting events, red carpet premieres, etc. are being used by "grandmas, soccer moms and teens"? I never noticed that. Those people sure spend a lot of money on high end cameras and lenses. You must be right, how dare a company sell to people the products they want instead of making products and trying to convince people that this is what they REALLY want. All of Sony's sensors don't seem to be raising the sinking ship that is DSLR sales maybe they should concentrate on making better cameras and lenses?

@67gtonr. I'm talking about the masses, not the professionals still clinging to Canon out of loyalty or indebted by glass and accessories. You keep up with your blind brand loyalty though. Canon is counting on you.

1) We have a difference in opinion on data visualization then. We scaled the graph to roughly cover the data of interest, instead of having a bunch of blank space in an already site-limited 515px-wide graph. Why not also complain that we're being misleading by using EV on the Y-axis, instead of the absolute numbers 2^13.7 (13,308) for the D810 and 2^11.2 (2,353) for the 5DS R for the base ISO dynamic range values? Which would, of course, exaggerate the difference much more. We could argue till the cows came home about what the most relevant way to display the Y-axis values should be, but we've clearly labeled our axes, so nothing here is deliberately or very misleading, as you suggest.

I suppose DxO is also misleading w/ all their DR graphs scaled similarly as well, & we're all just biased against Canon?

2) Which itself is interesting information, that the normalized DR difference only changes marginally going from 8MP to 36MP. But I understand your point and have updated the text.

http://guides.library.duke.edu/topten: For bar charts, the numerical axis (often the y axis) must start at zero. Our eyes are very sensitive to the area of bars, and we draw inaccurate conclusions when those bars are truncated.

'unless there's good reason not to (ie data is clustered at high values)' --> hey, you said it. Considering that all the data is clustered at > 6.5 EV, with literally nothing below that, I think you're essentially saying we did the right thing, right?

No, I would not call that "clustered". Of course there is nothing below 6.5, otherwise we (and they) would not be talking about that. Your chart would not have lost any clarity if you started from zero.

Anyway, if you do not see anything wrong with that, there is no point discussing it further.

Totally with you, Rishi: with no deviating trend or data cluster below 6.5, there's absolutely no reason to display anything below. I've always thought that a break-in-axis is only used to display data that clusters at two (or more) distinctively different values, not when zooming in on the region where *all* data occurs. In the figure above, all necessary information is there - it's up to the viewer to properly read the graph by taking note of the axes values... Of course, I'm just a lowly geoscientist, and we are famously bad at maths.

The inability to pull good tones (noiseless at base iso) out of the shadows in carefully exposed single shot images from my Canon cameras has been continued source of disappointment and frustration, I really had hoped this camera would better address this, but perhaps the 5Dmk4 will pull a rabbit out of the hat. For me, although I would love 50mp, I'll settle for less if the DR is much better

Im going to have to wait a year at least though I guess to find out (if I want to stay with canon), Still I'm not in a rush and have no idea whether a different maker of camera s would IRL produce something noticeably better in printing

not really- the current 5D does not have good recoverable shadow detail in high DR images- if they produce a camera that does , and which gives me more detail printed at A2, I'll be perfectly happy, those are the requirements I've been waiting for, they are what I need : so if I got them why would I want something else- would make no sense

Cameras are expensive tools and users want to have ways to objectively compare them and be able to see which ones are good for some applications and which for others.DxO are trying to do such objective comparisons, doing many tests and providing you the information free of charge.

I have d750 and 5d iii with good glass. The Nikon is considered scientifically to be the better camera.But somehow the Canon takes nicer pictures, better color gradation and pop.In the last analysis I'm interested in real life pictures beyond the laboratory.Canon wins there.

With maybe one or two exeptions, I can't recall to have seen a ccorrectly exposed picture that looks better when pushed 5 stops, than it would with a push of 3 stops. I'd argue that the DR advantage of the exmor sensor has very low relevance when it comes to the real world and for people actually shooting pictures. The results from DXO are very misleading if you use them when choosing a camera system. Ergonomics and handling, AF, lens offerings etc are way more important to me, than the ability to push shadows beyond 3 stops without adding noise.

Why keep people saying that DxO is misleading? Is the ability to read vanished?

DxO measures SENSORS. That's clear to start with (do they talk about AF, ergonomics, etc. or do they talk about the capabilities of the sensor?), but they also state it very clearly.

It's like checking a review of a computer processor and then say that the review was misleading because you bought a computer with that processor but it turned out to be a 11" laptop while you needed a big screen.

@Larsskv: So you're saying that the tulip shot in the 2nd page would've looked better w/ the bottom half of the image being black... because... reality doesn't deserve to be represented in the photo? :)

B/c that's what a 2EV lower push would've done to that photo. It would've just clipped a bunch of detail to black. Which is most certainly not what I remember from that morning, sleep-deprived as I was.

"I'd argue that the DR advantage... has very low relevance when it comes to people actually shooting pictures."

Just so I understand: are you implying I don't shoot pictures? B/c these are all pictures I've shot that've benefitted from increased sensor DR:

This is the critical question. Yes, I think that the tulip shot looks artificial, and would look more natural with deeper shadows; because that's the way we can see it with our own eyes. Now, it looks like some scientific recording. True colors means all to me, nothing else compares. When I had Nikon I had to tweak every shot, now with Canon, most shots are correct from the camera. Saves a lot of time and frustration.

@Rishi, I too think the tulip shot from the 5DS is pushed more than needed. It's hard to know how much. The shadows could very well go darker without hurting the artistic value of that picture. With regards to the pictures you have linked to, for the most I think they are good, but the question to me is how the 5DS would compare. First- the tulip picture with the A7R -is it pushed as hard as the tulip pic from 5DS? I don't think so. Did you use a filter when you took the A7R picture? I think you did say that at some point. Should the tulip pictures be compared? You have stated that they shouldn't.The other pictures, how much are the shadows pushed? To me, the Seattle sunset from Arizona seems to be pushed the most, and I think the lower part of that image is grey and dull. I'm sure it does better than a Canon, but i don't see the DR saving that picture.The sunset shot of the horse is great. The 5DS might be a poorer performer on that one, but it's hard to tell from the small file.

The other pictures, the thunderstorm, the "SonyaA7R+Canon 11-24, and the Rizalbridge - to me they don't seem pushed so hard, that a 5DS couldn't do the same without falling apart. I don't dispute that an EXMOR would do a little better, but the difference after post processing would be negligable.As I said, I think the DR advantage of the EXMOR has little photografic relevance.

@Larsskv: the thunderstorm, the a7R + 11-24, and Rizal Bridge photos had tones pushed 4-5 EV. If you can't tell they were pushed that much, then I've done my job well :) Tonemapping is pretty complicated, with pushing of certain tones 4-5 EV, but then re-crushing other tones to black, to give the illusion of lots of contrast, and not much shadow pushing. All these are tricks to get around the limited dynamic range & brightness of our current, poor output devices (LCD monitors).

I've literally shot the Rizal Bridge shot probably no less than 20 times w/ Canon cameras and grad filters over the years, so I can assure you DR did in fact save that shot.

Please do not compare the tulip shots. Different shots, different days, & the a7R shot was even shot in 12-bit mode, so there was DR cost. We could compare tones of similar Raw signal value, but that's beyond the scope here.

The 5DS shot probably looks pushed more b/c the sun was higher, so the foreground should be brighter.

Oh and thanks, but ironically the horse shot was pushed the least of all those shots!

That's fine if you think the DR advantage of Exmor has little photographic relevance, but as someone who's shot with every 5D-series camera for many, many years, I can assure you my experience is the exact opposite. And it's not even just landscapes where it's relevant. Environmental shots of people, for example, is another major type of photography that benefits, in addition to the examples I've shown.

@Rishi: Thank you for your reply! If the thunderstorm picture is pushed 4-5 stops, I really do believe it must have been way underexposed to start with. Sure, it is an advantage of more DR, that you can recover ok pictures from bad exposures, but correctly exposed, I think a 5DS could have made that picture just as good.The Rizal bridge shot also seems underexposed to my eye. I trust you when you say that pictures with older 5D, than 5DS+r doesn't do as well - but a large problem with the older 5D cameras are banding, which makes post processing a pain. The newer Canon does much better in that regard, and therefore a correct exposure and good post processsing will usually result in a very good picture.The DR advantage of the EXMOR is a pro for Sony and Nikon, for sure, but I find it getting too much attention, as I think other factors are way more important when choosing a camera.

Rishi, indeed that tulip row shot is kind of a marvel -- including of tone mapping to my late-night laptop screen. For an occasional dawntreader, it looks...real.

There is the noise. I wonder how much it would detract for exhibition judge eyes, in a big print. Or our eyes, attuned to 'reality' of present day in images.

I'm very much on the side of better DR, especially vs. pixel number races. I do however remember an exhibit of contemporary-big-print-size transparencies in a Basel museum, in there with the Picassos and Matisses, and impressive enough to belong as refreshment. They were from film, of course, perhaps of the 60s, and even as I enjoyed them and was not as photographically attuned as now, I really noted the grain and low resolution, yet felt they worked. The eye and what it wants can vary...by what is expressed, perhaps most?

With that in mind, I much enjoyed the images in a gallery here with your name. You are really doing things with light, in ways that bring a smile.

Wanted to say what the focus was for the sensation of being 'real'; it was the dirt between the rows, just right for the hour, which points to your mapping efforts being spot on as you felt. The rest, all light and expression, much enjoyed.

I also wanted to put in here something of continuing compliment for what all the newer staff are offering. Your lines and intensities, Dan's explorations in youthful life and the artist, all the others adding more, not least your editor Barney who's been making a lot out of big Seattle having a different accent.

Together and individually these mean a lot of life has come here, a great improvement in depth and breadth, as well as tastes and enjoyments for DPReview. I think you can begin to tell how it's appreciated, in the tone of the better replies.

"If the thunderstorm picture is pushed 4-5 stops, I really do believe it must have been way underexposed to start with."

Not really, because the shot was made to preserve the highlights... on a camera with a lower DR it would have been necessary to merge two shots to achieve this image.

As for the argument about "natural colors". There is not such a thing in photography. Not in the time of film, not today. There are not artificial devices capable of showing the whole true gamut of color. You may as well say that you like orangeish colors which is completely valid... some decades ago most photographers argued that true photos were colorless.

Having more DR is an advantage, it's not an issue that big but an advantage for sure. Get over it.

I have never owned a canon camera nor want too, but these scores are a pile of rubbish. I have used 5d mkiii and 6d for paid gigs. Borrowed a rebel T3i to compared against my Pentax K-X (long time ago). Each time ive used a canon i have been impressed with its output. Not just in the quality of the photos which were excellent but their whole system -- flash, lenses, autofocus and knock on wood -- no failures. They are good cameras that will get the job done.

Interesting you mentioned the Kx. That was one of the first Exmoor sensors employed by Pentax wasn't it? Hot stuff in its day.I used Canon 6D for the last three years, no complaints, so I agree with you regarding most situations.

Your story doesn't make sense. You say that the cameras were very good and name a few aspects. None of them was the sensor performance. These scores are about - guess what - the sensor performance. So why do you project your completely different aspects on these articles and call them rubbish?

I have used many Canons, and I have never had any problems with it either. But I did do some testing with Nikons (I own Nikon just because I have more 'feeling' towards the company, and I like the ergonomics more), and indeed there's a huge difference in dynamic range (especially in shadows, negligible difference in highlights in my short tests). It wouldn't matter too much if you do perfectly lit shots, but any photo where you need to pull out shadows - Nikon will give better results. Just like I said though, Canon is superb, and these differences or not something that make are break a photograph.

Unbelievable.... comment from a guy who never owned canon gear scores 10 likes only because he wrote a ton of BS that is pleasing to canon owners…

Guess the chance of canon ever investing in sensor technology, or, God forbid, in a capable autofocus system. Why’d they do that? There are still millions out there who are ready to pay thousands of dollars for a dog poo wrapped in a shiny paper.

Tools are tools. Some are way better than others, while some are marginally worse. I have switched platforms more than once. Fiduciary concerns trump emotion. Despite Canon's inferior sensor technology, there are a lot of photographers who make purchasing decisions based on other factors. If I had a ton of Canon lenses and did not feel constrained by inferior S to N ratios as well as dynamic range, I would not hesitate to upgrade. Right now, I am producing work that is suitable to Olympus OMD EMs. I had an A7 for awhile and did not like it. I'm sure its specs are better than the OMDs'. But there are other considerations beyond sensor performance.

I like the feature sets on the EM-1 & Em-5 II. The fast primes and pro lenses are excellent. I sometimes use Oly bodies on a Cambo Actus view camera for stitching and depth of field control. Mostly though, the Olys are a glove fit for my type of photography.

In one sense, further disappointment from Canon -- they're still stuck in a time warp on some aspects of sensor technology. But for most applications -- especially if you have bags full of Canon glass -- this is "good enough", as in good enough for ten zones of metering, especially when you consider that it will also have very little downtime given the general superiority of Canon customer service. There probably isn't enough here to get any but very specialized shooters (e.g. certain tilt-shift applications) to switch from Nikon, but there's certainly enough to retain wavering Canon customers, just so long as they don't get distracted by Sony's new-found EOS lens capability. Canon shooters will just have to continue to make darned sure they have their exposures right in-camera.

Hey DPR, if this is news, then why don't you have an article raving about the amazing 85 score for the DxO One? It is much bigger news that a 1" sensor can match a 50MP FF sensor! Or don't you believe that either? Then you should do a fact check job on it, right? Right?

That's the multi exposure score, which of course will score higher than single exposures for getting more signal. The single exposure score is comparable to the Sony and Canon cameras with the 1 inch BSI sensor.

Yes, we know. The question is why other cameras aren't tested in this way. EM5ii has a multi-image-shifting-high-res-mode-with-RAW-output but it didn't get a special treatment. Lots of other brands have handheld NR modes too (even if only JPEG), but hypothetically, if they put them out with .RAW extensions, would DxO start testing all these modes too? The evidence from the EM5ii says no. Why isn't DPR exposing this bias?

Why are you all whining about that DxO One? It's their own camera in which they developed that 'multi shot' technique. Of course they would make use of the opportunity (or made the opportunity in the first place) and show the results.

They are not obliged to do the same treatment for Olympus, or maybe they just came up with testing camera with 'multi shot'. Either way, it's a free website, they do tons of research, and we can use that. Just read well, and draw your own conclusions...

My only complaint with the Sony cams is that the lens selection pretty much sucks. I love their sensors! Wicked awesome. But lenses?... not so much. And if you attach 3rd party lenses you lose autofocus abilities, etc. :-/

My complaint is ergonomics and battery life. Especially the last one... I'd probably need 6-8 batteries for a full day shoot, while now I don't have to care about batteries at all (second battery in grip). Big difference.

Its obvious neither of you have actually used the Sony system. Not only is it compatible (with auto-focus) with more lenses than any other camera system on the planet, the battery life is no where near as bad as you seem to believe it is. I can easily shoot over 700 images with one battery, do you really take 4000-6000 pictures a day? Please stop posting about Sony cameras until you have some idea what you are talking about.

a7Rii does it all. Can't wait to see pros use them on TV with adapted Canon big whites in the next Olympics. It's more accurate than a DSLR and can take 700 shots while powering both a metabones adapter and the Image stabilization on both body and a 500mm f/4 lens. The extra dynamic range of all nicely stabilized but out of focus shots will give it a nice artistic look that will be unique for sports photography

Red herring. DxO clearly states the 85 score is only for 'DxO ONE SuperRAW Plus', not the 'DxO ONE'.

I fail to understand why this is such a difficult thing for some people to grasp. DxO's score of the DxO ONE in SuperRAW does not mean DxO's tests are garbage, when they clearly enumerate that the score is only relevant for that mode.

As is true of all overall scores, though, the overall score itself is of limited value. Individual metrics can be very useful, though.

One, no one buying iPhone add-on cameras is going to look at a DxO rating to decide whether to buy it. Two, the briefest bit of background reading will expose the fallaciousness of the score and its incomparability to all other data on the site. Three, they don't offer the same "privilege" to any competitors to stack an image and retest. Four, such flagrant self-promoting antics erodes their credibility for questionable gain.

DxO perform a good service testing lenses and sensors. But they need to own up that this flagrant self-promotion backfired and makes them look ridiculous.

They perform a service which generates an awful lot of traffic and discussion because a huge number of people prefer to discuss/argue photography than get on with it. It's ammunition for people who should be wise enough to know better.

The 'service' is used by more people than the data would ever truly be useful for, which is probably less than 1% of photographers.

A generous helping of the obvious, from the scientists at DxO. There is no reason why anyone using Nikon or Sony would consider switching based on these "revelations" and who else is in the market for a 50mp FF camera?

Thom Hogan has a thoughtful piece today on how he always wants the best but darned if lots of great photos have been taken with cameras that aren't, at that exact moment, the best.

Ok, so DxO has told us what we already know. Will this public shaming cause Canon to produce a better camera? If they were in Sony's position--a distant third, maybe.

You got it! You sum it up well the guy on top doesn't need to do anything new or innovative just let the third place guy do the hard work for their customers. Let their customers feel like they have the best, our customers will just buy us because we are #1.

I guess it is not that bad. If I saw the 7D II 5 years developing scored 4 point higher than the 7D I, this score for the 5Ds is quite acceptable. However when I see it is the score of the Nikon D7200 yes, It is lame, definitely. People who have used Canon and accepted this quality until now probably don't care that much about the scores and they will be quite happy with that. It is "almost" 90 and a lot details (only DR is worse) . Or not and they will leave the company maybe keeping the lenses. The AF performance on the A7 series is still not there for for example sport shooting...Big, Slow, weird company... as for the way or the dynamic they developing or whatever. I still cannot understand why they and Nikon also haven't started to develop FF mirrorless yet. I guess they will loose a lot costumer in the next few years. They lost me... I went for the cheaper, lighter, smaller FF as so many did. I'm a tourist, who just doesn't want to carry a brick all day for quality pictures...

Failed? They more than doubled the pixel count while at the same time provided no losses in d/r, color sensitivity, etc when compared to the 5D III and 6D. Canon's "measurements" may not match up with the measurements of other high-end cameras, but are the other cams shooting 50MP or even close to 50MP?

More about gear in this article

In a recent interview with My Modern Met, Australian photographer Jem Cresswell describes the intricacies of his project, Giants, a series of stunning underwater portraits of humpback whales during their annual migration to Tonga.

In the latest in his series of 'Behind the Shot' articles, landscape photographer Erez Marom takes us deep into Patagonia, and explains how he captured a nighttime view of the Torres Del Paine. Read more

Late last year we asked you to vote on the outstanding products of 2015. We created four polls, covering lenses and cameras, including more than 50 products in total. With thousands of votes cast, and plenty of 'discussion' in the comments, we're ready to announce the winners! But the fun isn't over yet - now is your chance to vote on the winners and runners-up from each of the four categories, to determine the readers' choice award for best overall product of 2015 - click through to vote

Canon has added to its EOS 5D range with the launch of two 50MP cameras, the 5DS and the 5DS R. Both cameras are high-resolution full frame models, primarily aimed at stills photographers. The only difference between the models is that the 'S' has an optical low-pass filter, while the 'S R' has a self-cancelling filter (the same relationship as Nikon's D800 and D800E models shared). We've put both cameras through exhaustive tests. Read our full review to see what we think

Tudor ApMadoc's usual photo haunts include the iconic architecture and gritty abandoned structures of Detroit, but a recent trip took him to an entirely different landscape - the canyons and big skies of the American Southwest. He brought a Canon 5DSR, 11-24mm F4 and a bag full of favorite lenses to capture Arizona's colors. Read more

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.